18-250mm lens. Is this good please?

[LouiseTopp]

I have seen a 18-250 lens by Sigma for my Pentax K30 at £159, It fits as I have tried it. is this worth going for? I already own a 18-55mm and a 55-200mm both which are weather sealed, however the 18-250 isn't, is this a problem?

I often get into a dilemma as to what lens I should use, as this lens would be like rolling two into one, it's the weather sealed problem I'm worried about.

Can you please advise me?

Many thanks.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Louise,

I cannot speak with regard to weather sealing.

When I bought my first DSLR back in 2009, I actually bought my Nikon D5000 'body only' so I could get one of these long zoom lenses and not be constantly swapping lenses (I was used to a bridge camera with a 10x zoom, so could see it coming!).

I started with the Sigma 18-250mm for Nikon mount.

I found the AF consistently back focused - i.e. focused at some distance behind what I had the focus point on, this made it VERY frustrating to use (e.g. blurry birds and sharp river bank behind). It went back to Sigma twice, once with my camera, for "calibration", but that did not resolve the issue.

Eventually (5 months later), because it was so demonstrably bad, I took the Sigma lens back to the bricks and mortar store and he agreed to swap for the Nikon 18-200mm lens - so I lost a bit of range and had to add some money. That said, at that time, the Sigma was 3 times the price you have stated, so at least it is cheap now.

The Nikon lens did not have the AF problem, so I was happy - and I have only bought Nikon lenses since.

The D5000 does not have AF micro adjust feature, if it had, perhaps that might have helped. I don't know whether the Pentax K30 has AF micro adjust, but if not ....

[rpcrowe]

"Good" is a very personal choice. What is "good" to photographer "A" is not "good" for photographer "B". IMO, it depends on your uses for the images you shoot and your personal desires for perfection...

A lens being "good" for you also certainly depends on how you use that lens and whether the extended focal range which allows you to shoot many subjects without the need to switch lenses is very important to you.

I remember the first zoom lens for a still camera that I ever used. This was the 43-86mm Nikkor in the late 1960's. Although a 2x zoom is nothing these days, it was a wonderful innovation back then. I loved shooting with it but, when I first viewed my slides and negatives produced by this lens, I was totally disappointed. Even though it was fun to shoot with, I hated the IQ it produced and never used that lens again.

I didn't use a still zoom lens until I switched to DSLR photography over 30 years after my first foray into still camera zoom lenses.

As far as being weather sealed, I use a raincoat for my camera/lens (even though it is said to be weather sealed) whenever I shoot in anything heavier than a light mist. They are light weight and quite inexpensive...

http://www.ebay.com/itm/PRO-Waterpro...0AAOxyYANTaBOh

Here is another thought, on the USA eBay, used K-30 Pentax bodies run about $250 USD. A second body would allow you to make use of both your lenses with no swapping needed. The second body would also be an insurance policy against camera failure on important photo shoots...

I always shoot with two bodies and my second body saved a trip to Alaska when I fell climbing a slippery mountain and broke one of my two cameras...

[xpatUSA]

I have seen a 18-250 lens by Sigma for my Pentax K30 at £159, It fits as I have tried it. is this worth going for? I already own a 18-55mm and a 55-200mm both which are weather sealed, however the 18-250 isn't, is this a problem?

I often get into a dilemma as to what lens I should use, as this lens would be like rolling two into one, it's the weather sealed problem I'm worried about.

Can you please advise me?

Many thanks.

If it's the "macro" version you might get some "zoom creep" which can be annoying.

Also a reviewer wrote "Compatibility problems with the new nikon bodies."

See http://www.imaging-resource.com/lens...os-hsm/review/

The non-macro and more expensive model gets better reviews, but one reviewer doesn't like the CA at 200mm:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/lens...os-hsm/review/

As to weather-sealing the choice is yours, sorry.

[proseak]

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigm...3-os-hsm-macro

[Dave Humphries]

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigm...3-os-hsm-macro

Thanks Peter,

I must have had the predecessor to this linked lens (by date), i.e. I had one that didn't do 'macro' - that said, I'm not sure the magnification factor was different.

[xpatUSA]

Thanks Peter,

I must have had the predecessor to this linked lens (by date), i.e. I had one that didn't do 'macro' - that said, I'm not sure the magnification factor was different.

In the links I posted earlier, there is a slight difference:

"Macro" 0.34x / 1:2.9
Non-macro 0.29x / 1:3.4

[MrB]

Louise, one of the main points about Pentax DSLRs is their weather resistance - you never need to worry about the weather, just keep on shooting! Therefore, in my opinion, this is a great slice of advice for you -

Here is another thought, on the USA eBay, used K-30 Pentax bodies run about $250 USD. A second body would allow you to make use of both your lenses with no swapping needed. The second body would also be an insurance policy against camera failure on important photo shoots...

Search the Web in the UK and you should be able to find a used but good condition K-30 body for around £200, but from a reputable dealer who will give a warranty.

Cheers.
Philip

[Manfred M]

Louise - it depends on your definition of "good".

If you are referring to optical performance, then the answer is clearly NO, when compared to your two existing lenses. Optical designers have to make significant compromises when they come up with a lenses with such a significant zoom range, and these do affect image quality.

If you want to avoid the hassle of changing lenses on the go, don't care about having a lens that is more susceptible to water and dust intrusion than you current gear, it might be an acceptable trade off for you. It might even weigh less than carrying both of your lenses around.

Only you can determine whether these trade offs are worth it to you.

[Black Pearl]

I had until, very recently the exact kit you currently use (K30 + the two WR lenses) and have to say while they are budget lenses they offer very good performance for the cost, they're light weight and the weather sealing is of a high standard - mine regularly got drenched without a single issue. I have used the Sigma you are looking at and it in no way compares performance wise to the two separate lenses.

Personally I would not recommend you change.

[William W]

Can you please advise me?

Yes I shall.

*

. . . I often get into a dilemma as to what lens I should use, as this lens would be like rolling two into one, it's the weather sealed problem I'm worried about.

I think that the need of/use of/want for “weather sealing” is like binary numbers – it is either yes or no - with no in-between.

Personally I neither give a thank-you nor any thought for “weather sealing”.

But If you value weather sealing (more importantly if you perceive that need it) then I think that it would be a poor choice for you to deviate from the excellent products which are made by Pentax.

Either the solution proposed by Richard Crowe, to buy another Pentax Camera Body - or do nothing at all and continue to swap lenses using the one Camera Body as suggested by Robin, both present as alternatives each of which is much better road to take.

Additionally one usually always compromises Image Quality when moving from a similar quality zoom with a modest Compass to to a Super Zoom (this is mentioned by Manfred) - this is a consideration that you should take into account - his would weigh heavily if it were my choice: I would avoid super zooms and use then as a last resort opting to swap lenses or take two cameras - (this is evidence by my recent comments on CiC made about the Canon L Series Super Zooms).

WW

[jcuknz]

Regarding your concern about weather sealing ....I have had many cameras over the years and NONE had WS .... but cameras for me have always been expensive and fine mechanical items worthy of care and protection and my policy is to keep my eyes open to what is going on around me .... my favorate example is on the promenade with the sea breaking over it and people ...some just stand there and get caught while I turn and protect my camera .... true I have never been in a sand storm or similar dusty atmosphere but then I doubt if you are likely to either? If you do intend to go to such places that is the time to think about protection
.
As far as the lens itself my interest is in having the range of AoV from 28<280 and the slight drop of in IQ doesn't affect me as it is just one of numerous factors involved in taking a photo. So my GH2 carries the 014140 lens almost permanently .... there is a lot to be said for the versatility of the bridge camera and my rig combines them with better IQ. Te only way you can find out if my maverick position is also for you is to try it. I rejected it on the weight but if you can cope with that then fine. My rig weighs a bit over 1.1kg which is heavy enough for me

[Manfred M]

John - I completely agree with what you have written, but only to a point. In the case of Louise, I'd have to suggest that other than reduced image quality versus her two current lenses, what you write would definitely apply to her situation.

On the flip side, I have been shooting the Panasonic 014140 almost exclusively for the past month (I have used the 100300 as well for a few shots). In my case, because I tend to like shooting during "golden hour", I find that the aperture range of a wide range lens extremely limiting when coupled with the low light performance of the Panasonic GX7 body. Same issue comes up with interior shots and other aspects of photography like narrow depth of field.

The small size and light weight is the reason I took this gear along on this trip (airline baggage allowances), but I really would have preferred to be have my faster lenses and full frame camera along (maybe I'll do so on my next trip to India).

[LouiseTopp]

Best I can do is post some example image's on here

[jcuknz]

Louise ... Manfred and I have quite diverging views on photography so his considerations about low light do not bother me since I worked in a marque at 2am and found that 65000 ISO worked quite well and I never bother about narrow depth of field because there are ways around that. The difference between my f5.8 lens at max zoom and a 'fast' f/2.8 is only two stops and that is within the range that can be handled and obtained in editing ... particularly now I have a bigger sensor.

More important than that is the lesson my experience with working with less than perfect gear and that is to shoot 'big and bold', something from my slight knowledge of your work wouldn't work since you seem to like landscapes and such like which I avoid. The head tutor at my school said landscape was the hardest form of photography and would not be taught ... so unless I want a record shot of where I have been or something grabs me I do not indulge

It amazes me that so many starters do so with landscape in blissful ignorance of just how hard it is.

I do have a 50mm f/1.4 lens which would give me 100mm AoV with MFT but yet to find a need to use it

I am a little suprised that Manfred has not put aside his GX7 from all the comments he has made about it. I read the LX100 is pretty good, small, light and versatile. or is it just FT and not MFT?

[Iconoscope]

These long zoom lenses serve a useful purpose for casual shooting but generally have serious deficiencies at one or both ends of the zoom range, in terms of image distortion and chromatic aberrations. Mid range is more acceptable to me and I avoid the ends of the range. But even then, the image quality will not compete with the image quality of a dedicated prime lens. The obvious advantage of a long zoom range is the convenience and I have seen some excellent photography done with a long zoom lens!

[Manfred M]

I am a little suprised that Manfred has not put aside his GX7 from all the comments he has made about it. I read the LX100 is pretty good, small, light and versatile. or is it just FT and not MFT?

John - As I have stated before, I use the GX7 when size and weight are the prime consideration regarding which equipment I chose to take along. I have been shooting it exclusively for the past 5 weeks, just because of this specific consideration. I've posted quite a few of my shots here over that past month

I do not expect it to perform as well as a camera that I paid about three times as much for (as well as lenses that are considerably more expensive as well), but for me it clearly identifies some of the weakness of mirrorless cameras in general, as well as the downside of the mFT sensor AT THIS TIME. I believe both of these issues will be resolved over time as the technology advances.

The biggest issue I have with the small camera body is that the camera designer can only do so much to fit the controls on a body as small as a mFT camera. This means many of the functions that I can adjust without taking my eye from the viewfinder on my full-frame camera require the use of menus (I've been shooting this way for decades; starting with my film SLRs). This means sub-optimal shooting and / or missed shots.

You had I have different shooting styles and shooting needs. I always explain why and what works / doesn't work for me so that others can make up their own minds regarding equipment choices. I do not criticize your choice of gear or the images you post. Comments without any cheap shots would be appreciated....

[D L]

. is this worth going for?

I can't answer this question but...

I was interested to find out that Jay Maisel almost exclusively uses a Nikon 28-300mm.
The caveat to that is he is using it on a Nikon D3S, where he is happy to push the ISO quite high.
Despite being a "super-zoom", the lens is "sharp enough" for his purposes, and saves him carrying more than one lens.
For his style of shooting and camera body, he does not need a wide aperture, or the sharpest possible lens, but he does require a wide range of focal lengths, and convenience.

[Manfred M]

I can't answer this question but...

I was interested to find out that Jay Maisel almost exclusively uses a Nikon 28-300mm.
The caveat to that is he is using it on a Nikon D3S, where he is happy to push the ISO quite high.
Despite being a "super-zoom", the lens is "sharp enough" for his purposes, and saves him carrying more than one lens.
For his style of shooting and camera body, he does not need a wide aperture, or the sharpest possible lens, but he does require a wide range of focal lengths, and convenience.

Scott Kelby makes exactly the same recommendation in one of his videos on travel photography where he recommended the 28-300mm lens as well. I have been shooting with a 14-140mm on my mFT camera almost exclusively the past six weeks while traveling in India. This has a focal length equivalency of 28-280mm on a full-frame camera, so definitely in the same ball park as what both Meisel and Kelby suggest. All of the images I've posted over the past 5-1/2 weeks have been taken with that lens.

As with anything, understanding the trade offs in the equipment selection (there always are some) is what is important here.

When I look at Louise's question;

I often get into a dilemma as to what lens I should use.

This suggests to me that this is more related to her photographic experience than anything else. She seems to not know what her current lenses will do for her and getting the lens she is looking at seems to be her way of wanting to work around this issue.

[LouiseTopp]

The lens came in useful to photograph a Robin, he was very close. I was at Hilliar gardens this afternoon sat on a bench and I felt something prickly land on my hand and hope off. I looked over and saw a Robin gazing at me not more then a few centimetres away. I carefully lifted up my camera and took a shot of him, then shared the rest of the crumbs of my biscuit with him. I cant take picts one handed, but I'll put the picture pf him on here.

Chuffed that happened, they are such nice birds.